[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3074-H3075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING IMPROPER CONDUCT BY MR. STARR ARE AT LEAST AS 
     CREDIBLE AS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LABOR SECRETARY ALEXIS HERMAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have just asked the Attorney General to 
investigate the possibility that independent counsel Kenneth Starr may 
have improperly shared information and coordinated their activities 
with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), my friend, or his staff.
  In support of this request, I point out that Chairman Burton 
coincidentally released his selectively edited transcripts on the same 
day that Judge Starr announced his new punitive indictments of Mr. 
Webster Hubble. According to published reports, ``The transcription and 
editing process of the tapes was a crash project aimed to coincide with 
last week's new indictment of Hubble.'' Recent reports have also made 
it clear that members of Chairman Burton's staff had developed several 
close contacts in Judge Starr's office and communicated with them 
regularly.
  For example, it was reported that several Republican sources 
confirmed that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.

[[Page H3075]]

Burton), this is a quote, ``refused to release the transcripts until 
the week Hubble was indicted for tax evasion and fraud, a committee 
source said. Mr. Bossee, one committee staffer, has several friends 
close to independent counsel Kenneth Starr and urged Burton to withhold 
the tapes until last week.''
  Yesterday, a Republican aide on Mr. Burton's committee was quoted in 
the press as admitting that the timing looked ``fishy,'' but he denied 
there was any coordination. Well, I agree that it looks bad and that it 
deserves investigation.
  These facts raise a simple question: Did Judge Starr let Chairman 
Burton's staff know in advance that he was returning an indictment on 
Webster Hubble? If so, what other kinds of information is he sharing 
with Republican investigators? If Judge Starr has been sharing 
information with Chairman Burton, these would constitute violations of 
law by the independent counsel himself.
  Frankly, I believe these allegations are far more specific and 
credible than those which today compelled Attorney General Reno to seek 
an independent counsel for Miss Herman.
  The Attorney General admitted that she found ``no evidence clearly 
demonstrating Secretary Herman's involvement.'' Nevertheless, a counsel 
was appointed.
  It disturbs me greatly that the independent counsel law can produce 
this kind of result. Department of Justice investigators worked for 5 
minutes and found no clear evidence of wrongdoing by Ms. Herman. 
Nevertheless, Attorney General Reno felt compelled to appoint an 
independent counsel.
  Now, if the Attorney General can appoint an independent counsel, a 
person with unlimited resources and time and money to spend 
investigating these kinds of allegations, then surely it is appropriate 
for the Attorney General to at least investigate some of the disturbing 
coincidences that surround Chairman Burton's release of the Webster 
Hubble tapes at the beginning of the month.

                              {time}  1945

  By the way, what was the purpose of Chairman Burton subpoenaing tapes 
from the Department of Justice and then releasing them to the public? 
What was his point? What service was he providing, or thought that he 
was providing?
  Judge Starr has said that the rule of law is supreme, and on that he 
is right. The law applies to all equally, including him, the 
Independent Counsel.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a communication that I have 
from Attorney Stuart F. Pierson, counsel for Marsha Scott, who says 
that he has found that the questions put to him by the Burton committee 
were extraordinary in that they were virtually identical to the 
questions put to her less than 2 months ago before a Federal grand 
jury.
  The material referred to is as follows:


                             Levine Pierson Sullivan and Koch,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 1997.
     Richard D. Bennett, Esq.,
     Chief Counsel, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
         U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Kenneth W. Starr, Esq.,
     Independent Counsel, Office of Independent Counsel, 
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Bennett and Mr. Starr: As counsel for Marsha 
     Scott, I am writing to advise you of a concern which has 
     arisen in connection with deposition questions propounded by 
     majority counsel of the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
     Resources, and Regulatory Affairs (the ``Burton Committee'').
       Ms. Scott has appeared five times before federal grand 
     juries under subpoena by the Independent Counsel, once in 
     Little Rock and the remainder in Washington, D.C. The last 
     appearances were on March 26 and 31, 1998.
       Prior to her appearances in March, Ms. Scott had been 
     examined by the Independent Counsel about a wide variety of 
     subjects, including her relationship with Webb Hubbell, her 
     communications with Mr. Hubbell and people in the White House 
     while he was in prison, his business activities following his 
     resignation from the Justice Department, his financial 
     condition, and conversations in the White House concerning 
     him, his family and his financial condition. Ms. Scott 
     answered all of those questions to the best of her ability.
       Ms. Scott has also appeared at numerous depositions under 
     subpoena by the committees of the United States Senate and 
     the United States House of Representatives. On April 1, 1998, 
     as a consequence of her withdrawal from a deposition that had 
     become repetitious and vexatious, as taken by counsel for the 
     House Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight (the ``McIntosh Subcommittee''), Ms. Scott was 
     required forthwith to appear at a closed-door hearing called 
     by Mr. McIntosh. At that hearing, Ms. Scott agreed to return 
     to complete the deposition by counsel for the McIntosh 
     Subcommittee. Within ten days of that agreement, counsel for 
     the Burton Committee called informally to advise that she 
     intended to take deposition testimony in addition to that to 
     be taken for the McIntosh Subcommittee.
       On April 28, 1998, Ms. Scott returned for the completion of 
     her deposition by the McIntosh Subcommittee. Following all 
     testimony taken by counsel for that subcommittee, counsel for 
     the Burton Committee appeared and conducted further 
     examination of Ms. Scott over objection. It is that further 
     examination that has raised the concern to which I refer.
       While relatively short, the questioning by counsel for the 
     Burton Committee was in at least five respects virtually 
     identical to examination taken of Ms. Scott by the 
     Independent Counsel before a federal grant jury on March 26, 
     1998. Specifically, both examinations addressed: (1) whether 
     Ms. Scott was aware of any displeasure expressed by or for 
     the First Lady about the possibility that Mr. Hubbell might 
     sue the Rose law firm concerning his billing dispute; (2) 
     whether Mr. Hubbell ever discussed the nature or extent of 
     his cooperation with the Independent Counsel; and (3) what 
     knowledge Ms. Scott had of conversations with, and the 
     activities of Mr. Hubbell's accountant, Mike Schamfele. 
     Additionally, both examinations repeated questions about any 
     conversations Ms. Scott had with Mr. Hubbell concerning his 
     clients after leaving the Justice Department, and any 
     discussions in the White House that Ms. Scott was aware of 
     concerning Mr. Hubbell's financial condition. The identity of 
     such examination was particularly remarkable considering that 
     Burton Committee counsel had asked to take it without any 
     formal notice less than a month after the Independent Counsel 
     has conducted its examination.
       At the close of the examination by counsel for the Burton 
     Committee, I asked that the committee and the subcommittee be 
     advised that I found it extraordinary that the questions 
     asked of Ms. Scott were virtually identical to questions put 
     to her less than two months before in a federal grand jury. I 
     reiterate that observation by this letter, and I request that 
     a responsible representative of the Independent Counsel and 
     the Burton Committee advise me by return letter whether the 
     examination of Ms. Scott is a consequence of the sharing of 
     any information, documents or consultation between the Office 
     of Independent Counsel and the Burton Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                Stuart F. Pierson,
     Counsel for Marsha Scott.

                          ____________________